Actually, I don't think contiguous namespace is all that important.
We did discontiguous namespaces internally, since we also do some other DNS
tricks with subzones for specific locations for non-AD aware machines.
We purchased a matching pair of .net and .com domains, and used the .net for
an empty root, while using the .com for the 'production' single domain.
The problem with empty roots and contiguous namespaces is that your DNS
names for servers get long:
server.ad.domain.com
------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Split Brain DNS and AD Namespace
>
>
>
> The split DNS with contiguous namespace is suitable and preferable for
> most installations.
>
> You might actually ask 'is there a compelling reason NOT to
> use the same
> namespace'.
>
> (See the Getronics.com Active Directory case study at
> microsoft.com for
> an example)
>
> William
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nevan McAlynn
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> When using the split brain DNS model, securing the internal
> DNS servers,
> are there any compelling reasons not to use the same top-level domain
> name for the Active Directory?
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
